On 7/13/2016 6:15 PM, Nancy Gish wrote:
> Eliot never claimed the he, himself, achieved it--only that he admired it.
"It" here is "perfection"? It seems to be Gordon who is the
serious user of the words "perfect" and "imperfect." My impression is
that they designate her own judgement on Eliot. Is that wrong? I'm
frankly surprised my inquiry caused such a stir. Does one need
vindication for asking a question? Wouldn't all like to know how or
whether "perfect" and "imperfect" in their various forms are used in
Eliot's writing? Seems a natural enough question when the word is being
leaned on so heavily by a well known critic.
> Reread Gordon. And his poems are not theological pronouncements
> anyway. Quoting them is not a refutation or a lifetime of biographical
Though writing them very well might be. And when you say his poems
are not theological pronouncements, I presume you mean you don't read
them that way. Perhaps what's needed is a good reading by someone who
does,culminating, especially, with 4Q. As always, I find it odd that the
poetry seems to register as so much less constitutive of itself than the
biography, though no one would be bothering whatsoever with any
biography were not the poems the distinctive, remarkable creations that
they are. Very odd. I would think in principle, at least, that it would
not be so difficult to agree on that point.